Brad Stevens named Celtics head coach
- Thread starter SoxScout
- Start date
- Status
Cellar-Door said:
I agree with all of this. I would add that though he already seems to be very good, he is no doubt getting better as he learns from experience.
As for demeanor, I don't think it indicates passivity or lack of engagement in Stevens' case. I just think Stevens is more light than heat. More focus, less purposeless blowing off of steam.
Nobody is claiming Stevens isn't engaged he's obviously a very passionate and dedicated coach. He does many things very well but saying he is more light than heat is precisely what i'm saying and the Celtics have gotten the short end of the whistles because of it.Eddie Jurak said:
Listen you can say no that's not why yada yada but this is something I picked up on early early last season when the refs were taking us out back and as I monitored it the same results were occurring and it's continuing this season. Things like this don't happen randomly there is a cause and effect......it's up to each of us to determine what it is (assuming you don't choose to ignore it). I'm very confident I know where a great deal of it is coming from.
well, another option is that before Stevens got here the team had an aging pair of future Hall of Famers. Coach aside, would they not have gotten a lot more calls last year if Pierce and Garnett were still around? The best and most established player Stevens has coached in the NBA is Rondo, quite the step down from Paul, KG, and Ray. After Rondo (who Stevens has only coached for half a season or so), it's who? Green? The remains of Gerald Wallace? Brandon Bass? Those guys aren't getting star treatment from the officials.HomeRunBaker said:
Another possibility is that Stevens may not get calls because he's new to the league (and younger than some of the guys he coaches). Maybe the refs' response to being "worked over" by Stevens would be "Who the fuck are you?"
Brad Stevens must be the JD Drew of basketball coaches.
As for his rotations, I think a lot of the problem is that he has a lot of players to play. I mean he can't just bury Evan Turner on the bench - he has to play him and play him in meaningful spots.
The Cs are what, five or so plays from being 6-2? They are #2 in points scored but more importantly #1 in assists. They are playing hard, playing with pace, and sharing the ball, even though they probably have bottom third talent in the NBA.
What more could you want from a coach?
As for his rotations, I think a lot of the problem is that he has a lot of players to play. I mean he can't just bury Evan Turner on the bench - he has to play him and play him in meaningful spots.
The Cs are what, five or so plays from being 6-2? They are #2 in points scored but more importantly #1 in assists. They are playing hard, playing with pace, and sharing the ball, even though they probably have bottom third talent in the NBA.
What more could you want from a coach?
HomeRunBaker said:
Honest question, you think that has more to do with Stevens than the fact that the C's have absolutely nobody on the roster that is good enough to get the calls? I personally don't see what difference it makes if Stevens gets hot under the collar and gives it to the refs or he plays it more passively; imo, Kelly, Sully, Bass, Bradley, Green, Smart, ect., haven't established themselves as players and accordingly aren't guys who get calls in the NBA.
I think of all the problems the C's have, Stevens passivity towards the officials is far down at the bottom of the list and well below having no top level wing talent, interior presence, or a crunch time scorer. If they had any one of these things they'd have a much better record than they have. Unfortunately, they are a team built around the play of dribble-drive tweener guards with a limited perimeter game and spread power forwards; not really a recipe for success in the NBA. But hell, they play hard, push the tempo and are at least entertaining to watch for 40-44 minutes a night.
I agree, it is personnel and system based more than anything else. Look at the team they are trying to emulate the Spurs. The Spurs were dead last in FTr last year, then Golden State, then Boston. Ball movement teams get more good shots and less FTs because they rarely ISO into wild charges down the lane by their wings, do we really think that the reason the Spurs don't get FTs is because Pop doesn't yell at officials enough? How about Jackson one of the heaviest ref lobbyists in the league? Coaches have very little real impact on the number of fouls called.jasail said:
As to the eye test that the Celtics are getting screwed..... every fan of every team thinks that. I don't think it was particularly bad for the Celtics last year or this year. There have been some bad calls, but there always are.
Again, I'm not hammering Stevens I've pointed out many good things he has been doing. I'm only bringing to light what to me is an obvious hole in his game.jasail said:
When Doc Rivers was a first-year coach in Orlando he had something like 5 rookie Undrafted free agents in his rotation. They were picked last with some questioning whether they could win 10 games. Rookie coach, no-name players.....that team went to the line more than their opponent that season.
Yes, stars get the calls many times because they are quicker and stronger to get better angles or sometimes they get the calls based out of reputation. That Magic team is only or example of a coach who understood how to manage the officiating crew. There are many others as well.....this Celtics team under Brad is severely lacking in this area. This isn't new.....it's happened for 90 games now. Cause and effect.
This thread is now as bad as that Chris Simms/Brady thread.
Let me sum it up for folks who haven't been paying attention:
1. Brady is overrated and like not a QB you want in the playoffs cause he's not Rodgers.
2. Brad Stevens is overrated cause he is and he doesn't steal a couple ref calls a game cause he has folded arms.
Let me sum it up for folks who haven't been paying attention:
1. Brady is overrated and like not a QB you want in the playoffs cause he's not Rodgers.
2. Brad Stevens is overrated cause he is and he doesn't steal a couple ref calls a game cause he has folded arms.
You really should be the one paying attention or simply remain in dreamland. It's not about stealing calls it's about doing your job and not having your counterpart run over you every night. Good god this team has enough problems and it was a problem last year as they went to the line nearly 3 more times per game.....this year it's over 6. But nothing's wrong.....nope. Nothing to see here lol.riboflav said:
An honest question: What makes you think that lobbying for calls results in more calls going your way?
Doc's first Magic team and last year's Celtics have basically nothing in common outside of rookie coaches, Orlando was a very good defensive team who got their offense inside and driving to the hoop, and had a ton of offensive boards. They actually got fouled less than they gave up per possession (based on FTA/FGA) but they won the boards battle and got more possessions which gave them a higher raw FTA.HomeRunBaker said:
As I noted up-thread, FT rates have little to do with the quality of a team or the quality of the coach.
Last year there were two teams that got less calls than the Celtics, they were widely considered top 5 or so teams in the league. 1 had a mediocre coach, the other had the best coach in the league.
Already addressed it in post this afternoon. It's all Sales. What makes you think the guy who makes 100 sales call a day will make more sales than the guy who makes 20? You're working for the calls and it's effective.slamminsammya said:
Why do the floppers get the calls? They sell it. Why do the whiners like Kobe, LeBron, and Manu gets the calls? They sell it. Why do the most aggressive coaches get their team the calls? They sell it.
This is one area Brad is very poor at which is reflected in the numbers. Some will recognize what is occurring while others will spend the rest of the season complaining that the refs suck.
I don't think constant complaining helps very much and yes, the refs do have thumbs on the scale.
IMHO what may help is waiting for a particularly bad call (typically it's not a long wait) and then every so often getting right in an official's face and force him to T you up and then eject you. The league doesn't like public displays that show up the officials, and if Stevens would do that once every ten games or so, the team might get more calls.
IMHO what may help is waiting for a particularly bad call (typically it's not a long wait) and then every so often getting right in an official's face and force him to T you up and then eject you. The league doesn't like public displays that show up the officials, and if Stevens would do that once every ten games or so, the team might get more calls.
Except that I have pointed out to you repeatedly that it isn't, and that the numbers point to style of play as the real reason since FTr seems to have no connection to coaches.HomeRunBaker said:
However that doesn't fit into the fantasy you have created so you ignore it, declare something obvious with no offer of proof that there is a connection then steadfastly repeat it in the face of all evidence with none of your own.
So no more bitching about the Celtics getting jobbed by the refs anymore then since it doesn't exist. That's a fair compromise.Cellar-Door said:
HomeRunBaker said:
This analogy makes no sense, unless you are making 100 sales calls to the same person every day. In that case, I would go with the salesman who makes one pitch as opposed to the desperate guy who is badgering the poor shmo multiple times even after he's been rejected.
Each call is independent of the other. Analogy is spot on. Aggression wins, contact pestering is proven to be effective if ugly and annoying...see Manu, Kobe and LeBron. Doc is a master at this craft which is why the dropoff is so noticeable with the Celtics. It's a league of makeup calls and who will fight most for them. Those who fight the best get the next call.....this isn't new.slamminsammya said:
Or maybe... I don't know the fact that they have a massively different roster and a completely different offensive system?HomeRunBaker said:
You still haven't addressed why Pop and Mark Jackson, both of whom are plenty experienced and active at working the refs got even less calls than the Celtics.
By your argument we would assume Pop is a mute statue on the sidelines who never looks at the refs, I think anyone who has seen a Spurs game knows that is untrue.
So... where is your evidence linking coaches activity to Ftr? You still haven't come up with anything, and what little data there is doesn't support the idea that coaches have a major impact on calls.
This is why coaches "work the refs." It usually makes a difference of 4-6 points per game. I remember reading "48 Minutes,"by Bob Ryan and Terry Pluto, and there was one excerpt that had an assistant coach calling out every 3 second violation he saw, and a couple of times it did get the refs to call a 3 seconds when the Celtics were on defense. Since the game went into overtime, those little 3 seconds calls created enough turnovers to help the Celtics eventually win the game.HomeRunBaker said:
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4716014/stevens-when-it-gets-tough-we-havent
After the Cs blew another huge lead, Stevens called out his team somewhat.
To what extent does Stevens bear some of the responsibility for this? I know it's a players' game and that he can only do so much from the sidelines. Still, does Stevens deserve some of the blame for this repeated pattern of jumping out to huge leads and then blowing them and being particularly bad when it's close and late?
After the Cs blew another huge lead, Stevens called out his team somewhat.
To what extent does Stevens bear some of the responsibility for this? I know it's a players' game and that he can only do so much from the sidelines. Still, does Stevens deserve some of the blame for this repeated pattern of jumping out to huge leads and then blowing them and being particularly bad when it's close and late?
TheoShmeo said:
I'm convinced that the issues in close games are a function of the roster. The game slows down in the fourth quarter, and the Celtics don't have a guy that can break down a half court defense. For some reason, the guys on the floor seem to be looking to Rajon Rondo to be that guy, and it's not working. Stevens went small last night to get Evan Turner on the floor in an attempt to find someone that can create his own shot, but I think it's pretty clear he's not the answer either.
The problem is exacerbated by their terrible defense; if they could defend, they could push the pace in the fourth quarter a bit and try to get some easy baskets; but, as Rondo reminded Tommy Heinsohn this week, it's tough to run when you're always taking the ball out of the net.
In light of that, I'm not sure Stevens calling out the team for a lack of toughness is the right move. They just don't know what to do in these situations, and the don't have the personnel needed to execute their offense close and late. That said, there were some effort plays the Celtics gave up on last night, and those need to be called out. The Celtics can't afford to get beaten on hustle plays; that last sequence after Green's missed jumper last night was typical. Loose ball on the floor, no one goes down to get it. They need a quick foul, no one reacts quick enough, with Turner waving his arm at a guy going for an uncontested layup to ice the game.
TheoShmeo said:
In general NBA coaches are difficult to judge when they dont have real talent to work with, and thats the situation Stevens finds himself in. Bad teams are maddening because they will have stretches where it looks like they 'put it together' and then they come crashing down to earth and we will attribute it things like bad execution, coaching, etc But in actuality, its just a talent issue which is what I think we are seeing here. It takes young teams a long time to learn how to consistently win in the NBA and not under achieve. I remember getting really frustrated at the 06 and 07 teams because you could see that there was some good raw talent there in guys like Big Al, Delonte, Perk, etc but they couldnt consistently live up to expectations. At the micro level there were a multitude of reasons that caused this but the real epedimic was that it was a young team.
I'd look at this from the glass half full point of view, Stevens & crew are doing a great job jumping out to big leads but realistically they are vastly overachieving when they do that because its a very unrealistic expectation for this team to dominate any team in this league.
Specifically on the close and late issue, I echo what Creighton said on the problem being with the roster.
CreightonGubanich said:
Rondo's the 'go to guy' but has that role by default because he's the best player on the team, not because he is a player who can go generate an easy bucket by himself. In virtually every game every team looks to their 'star(s)' to carry the load, and there isnt a single guy on this roster other than Rondo (although Smart might have this mentality too) who wants to thrusted into this role. Rondo's game isnt suited to actually do this but he's trying. Jeff Green's ceiling as an NBA player is not as a teams leading scorer but thats what he is here, the roster is just a bunch of square pegs who are trying to be round.
My suspicion is that I do think this is the right move by Stevens although I dont have the inside info to back this up. My gut tells me that Stevens knows this team isnt wining the title and he has some realistic expectations for this team and clearly they arent even playing up to realistic expectations right now. I also beleive he could live with being beat by superior talent, but losing when he feels its not talent related (ie being phyiscal enough) is a problem and he wont stand for it. Losing sucks, but losing because you didnt put in enough effort, werent mentally tough enough, didnt hustle on defense, etc are things that should make you miserable. It seems Stevens wants to instill this mentality into the team to make sure they dont just accept losing.
This is where things get real interesting for an NBA coach. You'll quickly lose the faith of your GM and ownership if they think you have problems with team effort or you have lost the team. Hopefully you can handle this behind closed doors and it never reaches the media, but if players arent getting the message now you have to start playing with fire if you decide to call them out like Stevens did. This either drives them because they love playing for you or they love playing to get you fired (see Rick Pitino year 3). I think this team will respond for Stevens because I think they respect him, but this is a very intriguing turning point for this team so get your popcorn ready.
wutang112878 said:
I hope you are correct because just reading some of his quotes from the story in the Glob - http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/12/02/hawks-rally-beat-celtics/CoEZAzxb8rxg3jU3tQDM7I/story.html - I wonder if he's starting to see greener pastures in other jobs. For example:
and
and
Maybe it's just a bunch of lines taken out of context to make a point but I wouldn't blame Stevens if watching all of this losing is getting to him.
I keep hearing that he hates losing so much and it's driving him away, but what did he think he was signing himself up for with this roster? I don't buy that he's going to jet, I think he'll stick with it for at least another 2-3 years to allow Danny to have the time to get him talent.
Ok, so re-reading those again yeah they dont sound too good. We're not in the land of 'You've got the wrong guy running this basketball team' yet but there was certainly some frustration coming through. My hope is that he is pissed that what he is teaching them they just arent doing on the floor because that situation is fixable. We are certainly reading between the lines a bit if we are saying this is because of the losing in general is getting to him because thats slightly different.
I really have to think he is smart enough to have realized that he wasnt going to pull off a Butler Bulldog miracle in the NBA and thats why he was given the 6 year deal.
I really have to think he is smart enough to have realized that he wasnt going to pull off a Butler Bulldog miracle in the NBA and thats why he was given the 6 year deal.
Brad Stevens, from the day he accepted the Celtics 6/$22m deal, has been linked to succeed both Mike Krzyzewski at Duke and Tom Crean at Indiana. Coach K, if healthy, isn't likely to be stepping down anytime soon however Crean lost 9 of his final 15 games last year while having several players arrested, another suspended, and 3 more transferring including a top prospect. He's scheduled your typical cupcake pre-season schedule that included a loss to Eastern Washington and close calls against Lamar and UNC-Greensboro. This week Louisville smoke them by 20 and Saturday they (ironically) play Butler in a big game.
Crean's contract has a similar base to Steven's current deal at just over $3m per however if Crean is fired this year he is due a $12m buyout. This number drops dramatically in the ensuing years to $7.5m, $4m, then finally $1m in 2018. While it's unlikely a move is made following this season once you get down to $7.5m it becomes a very real possibility.
Will next season be Brad's final in Boston?
Is Brad built for being a perennial loser/rebuilder throughout his 6 year deal until the babies drafted over these next few seasons mature?
What will Danny/Wyc do to bring in established players to compete over the next 18 months to entice Brad to stay this through?
What does Marcus Thornton think?
If you were Brad and could escape NBA purgatory to take over a legendary program at similar or greater dollars would you?
Crean's contract has a similar base to Steven's current deal at just over $3m per however if Crean is fired this year he is due a $12m buyout. This number drops dramatically in the ensuing years to $7.5m, $4m, then finally $1m in 2018. While it's unlikely a move is made following this season once you get down to $7.5m it becomes a very real possibility.
Will next season be Brad's final in Boston?
Is Brad built for being a perennial loser/rebuilder throughout his 6 year deal until the babies drafted over these next few seasons mature?
What will Danny/Wyc do to bring in established players to compete over the next 18 months to entice Brad to stay this through?
What does Marcus Thornton think?
If you were Brad and could escape NBA purgatory to take over a legendary program at similar or greater dollars would you?
Stevens was born in, grew up in & his dad played football for Indiana, so maybe that would be intriguing to him for that reason. But, I wouldn't consider Indiana a legendary program (no championships in 27 years, no final 4s in 12 years) the same way I'd consider UNC, Duke, UCLA (who Stevens turned down to take the Celtics job) or Kentucky legendary.
Anyway, he may feel like quitting sometimes during the in-year losing, but I bet in the offseason his competitiveness takes over and he feels like he can come back stronger the next year. Rondo might infuriate Stevens at times but I bet if forced to choose management sides with Stevens not Rondo.
As long as the working relationship with Ainge is good & he satisfied he's getting the resources he needs & I'm unaware of any indications otherwise. If the relationships within the Celtics front office get dysfunctional b/c of all the losing then that might be another reason Stevens might want to leave, but I get the impression that they're level-headed smart guys who see the big picture & weren't expecting a miracle.
Anyway, he may feel like quitting sometimes during the in-year losing, but I bet in the offseason his competitiveness takes over and he feels like he can come back stronger the next year. Rondo might infuriate Stevens at times but I bet if forced to choose management sides with Stevens not Rondo.
As long as the working relationship with Ainge is good & he satisfied he's getting the resources he needs & I'm unaware of any indications otherwise. If the relationships within the Celtics front office get dysfunctional b/c of all the losing then that might be another reason Stevens might want to leave, but I get the impression that they're level-headed smart guys who see the big picture & weren't expecting a miracle.
Well, I'm not one to argue with success.Blacken said:
However, just for context, as a team, the Celtics this year average 21.6 fouls per game, which is 19th in the league. The leader is Cleveland with 18.6 fouls per game. The foulest team in the NBA is Denver at 24.3 fouls per game. So, the celtics are in the bottom half of the league, but still average less fouls than 11 other teams. Oh, the Clips are 18th in the league with 21.4 per game.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/personal-fouls-per-game
You completely misread that argument you jumped into. HRB thinks we don't receive foul calls. You are looking at fouls called against us.oumbi said:
Of course the original argument was terrible and unsupported by data since some of the most respected coaches in the league, and some of the coaches who work officials the most in the league get the fewest foul calls, as calls are about playing style more than anything else.
Seth Davis is "hearing things"StuckOnYouk said:
http://national.suntimes.com/nba/7/72/873156/brad-stevens-boston-celtics-texas
Next spring it becomes much more feasible for IU to pay Crean's buyout. 12 months from now will be a very delicate time for Celtics fans who love Brad.
He's earned my respect with the job he's done this year. In the big picture he won't play a factor in us hanging #18 for a long time (until our Nets picks that Ainge nails mature) so it wouldn't be the end of the world if he left this year or next. The important thing is for Ainge to locate elite NBA stars before a coach matters.swingin val said:
I seriously doubt this story but to answer why would be the same reason you or I would consider an offer of a higher paying job.luckiestman said:
If it comes down to money, Stevens was signed to the Celtics on a 6 year, $22 million contract -- so, a bit under $4 million/year. By comparison, aside from Coach K who is a big outlier, the top college coaches make around $5 million/year.
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/7/3/4492098/brad-stevens-celtics-contract
http://www.paywizard.org/main/salary/vip-check/basketball-coach-salaries (note: this may be a little out of date as Calipari signed a contract giving him more than what's listed on this site).
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/7/3/4492098/brad-stevens-celtics-contract
http://www.paywizard.org/main/salary/vip-check/basketball-coach-salaries (note: this may be a little out of date as Calipari signed a contract giving him more than what's listed on this site).
It would cost Michigan (or Indiana next spring) well in excess of what Brad is currently making I'd guess starting over $5m per which would be around a 30-35% greater than he's making now to return to the college ranks. If he's not happy in the NBA that would be pretty enticing of course none of us truly know what Brad is thinking about his NBA future. He seems like a family guy and the NBA lifestyle is a major grind when you're raising young children.
HomeRunBaker said:
I disagree. If you define 'helping us hang a banner' as 'coaching during a season where we have realistic title hopes' then yes Stevens isnt doing that until 17 or 18 but there is a ton of work to get from where we are to where we need to go and without that work there wont be anymore banners. Stevens has demonstrated that he is willing to play young players which allows them to develop and he does an unbelievable job of putting players in the best possible position to succeed. The Celts are pouring the foundation of a title home, sure its a while before its time for paint and the finishing touches but someone still has to pour that foundation. Jim Obrien was excellent at trying to win the next game but with zero regard for the long-term but Stevens is doing both and thats amazingly difficult to do. ML Carr was great at tanking to try to get Duncan but when he didnt hit on that lottery ticket all that work was for naught and the franchise was in utter chaos.
I forget exactly what NFL Films production it was, but there was one where they were talking about the work that Belichick did at Cleveland and the folks who were there like Ozzie Newsome and Schwartz were reflecting on the foundation and program that Belichick developed there. Newsome went on to say that if Belichick had been able to stay they would have won a title because of the blueprint he put in place. Stevens isnt Belichick but thats the type of work he is doing right now.
This isn't the NFL. You need Superstars to win in the NBA and all the foundation in the world isn't going to matter until his boss acquires those players. Playing Olynyk, Sully and Crowder isn't playing any factor in our next banner. The league doesn't work like this......it never has.wutang112878 said:
HomeRunBaker said:
I agree you need superstars and there are really 2 options to get them. One option is to tank in the lottery and hope you grab a top pick and there is a true superstar in that draft. Alternatively, there is the path we took to get the 2008 team where you acquire assets (both attractive players and picks) and use those assets to trade for your superstars. This seems to be the path we are currently on. I'd say we already have significant draft assets but we lack the young player assets and this is what Stevens brings to the table via his foundation. The Olynyk, Sully's and Crowders of the world arent leading us to a championship, but turning them into budding players and thus young assets gets us closer to the next banner. It seems that you are suggesting that a great player development coach plays no role in player development which seems really short-sighted.
Prior to 2008 while Doc was here he did the exact same thing, he allowed the young players to play and he helped them develop. This was in stark contrast to Jim Obrien who acted as though his job relied on winning the next game on the schedule and that stunted player development. There are a ton of coaches who could simply roll out a lineup every night and let the young guys develop but having a bad coach in this scenario can indeed stunt player development. Having a Mike Brown of the world at the helm can really hold you back because a coach like that can lose a team in a flash and turn a season into an utter disaster.
- Status